The Hostile-Minded

Identity

Segment range snp4.3:1.1–8.4. Sn 780–787 (8 verses). Received title Duṭṭhaṭṭhakasutta — "the eight[-verses] about the hostile[-minded]." The second titled -aṭṭhakasutta, after 4.2 Guhaṭṭhaka. 4.3 also marks a register-shift within the collection: it is the AV's first sustained polemic against diṭṭhi-attachment — the topic that will dominate 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.12, 4.13. With that polemic comes the AV's core diṭṭhi-debate lexicon: khila, abhinibbutatto, ussadā, kuppa-paṭicca-santi, dhono, anūpayo, attā nirattā, pakappitā, diṭṭhinivesā, ānisaṁsa, saṅkhatā.

Text and form

Triṣṭubh throughout (Norman 2001 p. 329). No narrative frame in the Pāli; no speaker-tags. Single-speaker Buddha monologue — but of a different kind than 4.1 or 4.2. 4.3 is the AV's first sustained argumentative sutta. Where 4.1 and 4.2 diagnose-and-prescribe (symptom → cure), 4.3 argues for a position: the muni takes no side in disputes, and therefore cannot be argued with. The verses move by dialectical steps rather than by imagery.

The structure is bilaterally organised around the pivot v. 4 ↔ v. 7, each naming the goal-state from a different angle:

• vv. 1–3 diagnose view-attachment (opening framing; how one could transcend a view one is led by; the self-proclaiming sect-teacher);
• v. 4 names the goal interiorly — santo ca bhikkhu abhinibbutatto, "a peaceful bhikkhu with self quenched," noble, with no ussadā (swellings, pretensions);
• vv. 5–6 specify the disease the prescription cures — constructed doctrines as "peace conditioned on the unstable"; the diṭṭhi-rejection-and-adoption cycle;
• v. 7 names the goal exteriorly — dhono ("the cleansed one"), anūpayo ("uninvolved");
• v. 8 extends the goal-portrait into the argumentative-immunity claim: the anūpayo is by definition unargueable-with.

The sutta is notably image-poor by AV standards. The closest thing to imagery is the oxymoron-figure kuppa-paṭicca-santi ("peace on the unstable") at v. 5 and the adhosi / √dhū shaking-off pun sealing v. 8. This is dialectical-philosophical register, not the image-driven meditative register of 4.1, 4.2, 4.6.

Content

Some speak with hostile minds (duṭṭhamanā); some speak set on the truth (saccamanā). The muni does not enter the arisen dispute; the muni has, anywhere, no khila (obstruction).

How could one transcend one's own view while led by desire, entrenched in preference, fabricating one's own absolutes? — one would speak just as one understands. Whoever, unasked, broadcasts his own precepts and vows to others — the skilled call this an ignoble nature: one who of his own accord proclaims himself. But a peaceful bhikkhu, with self quenched, not boasting "thus am I" about his precepts — this the skilled call a noble nature: one for whom no swellings exist anywhere in the world.

Whoever has doctrines constructed and composite, set forth but unclean, seeing the advantage in himself — depends on a peace conditioned on the unstable. Diṭṭhi-attachments are not easily transcended; having decided among teachings, one tightly grasps; therefore among these positions a person rejects, and takes up, a teaching.

For the cleansed one there is no constructed view about becoming-after-becoming anywhere in the world. Having abandoned deceit and conceit, by what would the cleansed one go — he is uninvolved. One involved is embroiled in disputes about teachings; with one uninvolved, how, by what, would one dispute? For him there is neither taken-up nor put-down; he has shaken off all views right here.

Key passages

v. 1 (Sn 780) — the opening.

Vadanti ve duṭṭhamanāpi eke, / Athopi ve saccamanā vadanti; / Vādañca jātaṁ muni no upeti, / Tasmā munī natthi khilo kuhiñci.

Some speak with hostile minds; some speak set on the truth. The muni does not enter an arisen dispute — the muni has, anywhere, no obstruction.

Opens with an almost concessive ve… eke ("yes, some speak like this"), acknowledging both hostile and ostensibly truthful speakers. The point of the pair is that the muni does not engage with either. Khila is a hapax in the AV; the rest of the Niddesa-era canon knows the term from the cetokhila context.

v. 4 (Sn 783) — the interior goal-portrait.

Santo ca bhikkhu abhinibbutatto, / Itihanti sīlesu akatthamāno; / Tamariyadhammaṁ kusalā vadanti, / Yassussadā natthi kuhiñci loke.

But a peaceful bhikkhu, with self quenched, not boasting "thus am I" about precepts — this the skilled call a noble nature: one for whom no swellings exist anywhere in the world.

Abhinibbutatto is the AV's signature -atto compound for interior quenching; it recurs at Snp 2.12 Vaṅgīsasutta and Snp 3.4 Sundarikabhāradvāja, but not in the prose Nikāyas — carrying the AV's characteristic interior-quenching theme without invoking the standard nibbāna technical vocabulary. Ussadā ("swellings, pretensions") is also distinctive AV-internal lexicon, recurring at Snp 4.10:8.4 with the same kuhiñci loke qualifier.

v. 5 (Sn 784) — peace on the unstable.

Pakappitā saṅkhatā yassa dhammā, / Purakkhatā santi avīvadātā; / Yadattani passati ānisaṁsaṁ, / Taṁ nissito kuppapaṭiccasantiṁ.

Whoever has teachings constructed and composite, set forth but unclean — seeing the advantage in himself — relies on a peace conditioned on the unstable.

The kuppa-paṭicca-santi figure is the AV's most economical critique of sectarian self-security: the sectarian's "peace" is conditioned on an unstable (kuppa) position. The Niddesa maps the phrase onto its three-fold santi taxonomy (accanta- / tadaṅga- / sammuti-santi), placing kuppa-paṭicca-santi at the conventional-illusory tier alongside the 62 diṭṭhigatāni.

v. 6 (Sn 785) — the diṭṭhi-rejection-and-adoption cycle.

Diṭṭhīnivesā na hi svātivattā, / Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ; / Tasmā naro tesu nivesanesu, / Nirassatī ādiyatī ca dhammaṁ.

Diṭṭhi-attachments are not easily transcended. Having decided among teachings, one tightly grasps. Therefore among these positions, a person rejects, and takes up, a teaching.

Pāda b — Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ — is verbatim with Snp 4.5:6.4, Snp 4.9:3.3, and Snp 4.13:13.2. The four-sutta recurrence makes this the AV's single most-repeated formula-line (confirmed in notes/formula-verification.md).

v. 7 (Sn 786) — the exterior goal-portrait.

Dhonassa hi natthi kuhiñci loke, / Pakappitā diṭṭhi bhavābhavesu; / Māyañca mānañca pahāya dhono, / Sa kena gaccheyya anūpayo so.

For the cleansed one, nowhere in the world is there a constructed view about becoming after becoming. Having abandoned deceit and conceit, by what would the cleansed one go — he is uninvolved.

Dhono ("the cleansed one") appears in the Pāli only here (Snp 4.3:7.1) and at MN 56:29.29 (Upāli's verses in praise of the Buddha). The Niddesa etymologises it via √dhū ("shake") — dhuta, dhota, sandhota, niddhota — and equates dhono = arahā. Anūpayo ("uninvolved") is the pivotal epithet of the closing two verses.

v. 8 (Sn 787) — the argumentative-immunity close.

Upayo hi dhammesu upeti vādaṁ, / Anūpayaṁ kena kathaṁ vadeyya; / Attā nirattā na hi tassa atthi, / Adhosi so diṭṭhimidheva sabbanti.

One involved is embroiled in disputes about teachings; with one uninvolved, by what, by how would one dispute? For him there is neither taken-up nor put-down; he has shaken off all views right here.

Pāda c — Attā nirattā na hi tassa atthi — is the AV's signature no-position expression. It recurs with variants at Snp 4.10:11.3 (Attā vāpi nirattā vā), 4.14:5.4 (Natthi attā kuto nirattā vā), and 4.15:20.4 (Nādeti na nirassatī), plus related formulations at 4.4:4.3 and 4.5:5.1 — six AV suttas in total per the grep-verified formula family. Adhosi (aorist of √dhū) picks up the dhono etymology of v. 7, sealing the sutta on the shaking-off image.

Choice-points

v. 1, vadanti. Norman (p. 329), Fronsdal, Thanissaro, and Lee read "dispute" rather than plain "speak"; the Niddesa (mnd3:5) glosses vāda = "blame/insult." Bodhi and Sujato keep "speak." Three-three split. The context (the next line's vādañca jātaṁ) carries the dispute-sense regardless; translating vadanti twice as "dispute" in pādas a–b makes the English heavy. "Speak" with the dispute-sense visible from the next line holds up.

v. 5, kuppa-paṭicca-santi. Norman reads "a peace which is dependent upon [what is] unstable" on the grounds that kuppa is the opposite of akuppa (= nibbāna). Thanissaro (note 1 to 4:3) offers a dhātu-theory reading — "a peace dependent on the provoked" — which requires importing later Abhidhammic vocabulary the verse does not otherwise use. Norman's reading is more economical and consistent with the Niddesa's own sammuti-santi placement of the term.

v. 8, attā nirattā. The most contested phrase in the sutta, and one of the AV's most interpretively consequential cruxes. Two derivations are live:

• Norman's reading: from past participles ātta ("taken up") and nirasta ("put down / rejected"). The reading is grounded in v. 6's setup — nirassati ca ādiyati ca dhammaṁ ("rejects, and takes up, a teaching") — where the verbal forms are unambiguous. Norman (p. 333): "the use of atta-niratta and nirassati here is a direct reflection of the statement ādiyati ca dhammaṁ in 785cd."
• The Niddesa's reading (mnd3:62.2–3): attā = sassatadiṭṭhi (eternalism) / nirattā = ucchedadiṭṭhi (annihilationism). Derives from ātman / nirātman. Pj II concurs.

All six published translators — Norman, Bodhi, Fronsdal, Thanissaro, Sujato, Lee — follow Norman's ātta/nirasta derivation against the Niddesa's ātman/nirātman. The consensus is driven by the v. 6 setup and by the across-AV recurrence pattern at 4.10, 4.14, 4.15 where the verbal sense works consistently. The two readings converge in spirit (the sage is beyond positing and denying), but the grammatical derivation differs. The published consensus is interpretively safer.

v. 3, ātumā. The verse uses ātumā ("self") where standard Pāli would use attā. Ātumā preserves an archaic vocalism closer to Vedic ātman — a small antiquity-marker worth noting though not load-bearing. Niddesa (mnd3:23.2) glosses simply as attā; translators render "self" without flagging the archaism.

Vocabulary and commentary

Lexical profile. 4.3 is the AV's formulaic hub. Two of the collection's four-sutta formulas meet here:

• Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ (v. 6 = Snp 4.5:6.4 = 4.9:3.3 = 4.13:13.2) — the AV's single most-repeated line, carrying the diagnosis of dogmatism: "having decided among teachings, tightly grasped."
• Attā nirattā family (v. 8, plus 4.10:11.3, 4.14:5.4, 4.15:20.4 as verbatim siblings; 4.4:4.3 and 4.5:5.1 as variants) — the AV's signature no-position expression, recurring across six suttas of the collection.

Further AV-internal vocabulary inaugurated or concentrated here: khila, abhinibbutatto, ussadā, kuppa-paṭicca-santi, dhono, anūpayo, pakappitā, diṭṭhinivesā, ānisaṁsa, saṅkhatā. Several recur across the diṭṭhi-debate cluster: ussadā natthi kuhiñci loke (v. 4 = 4.10:8.4); pakappitā diṭṭhi bhavābhavesu (v. 7; cf. 4.2:5.4 and 4.13:7.4 Avītataṇhāse bhavābhavesu); abhinibbutatto (shared with Snp 2.12 and 3.4). The ātumā archaism at v. 3 (see Choice-points) is a further small antiquity-marker.

Mahāniddesa (Mnd 3). Import-density is high, befitting the sutta's philosophical vocabulary. Four moves are particularly aggressive:

• sīlavatāni → eight dhutaṅgas (mnd3:17.12–13). The full ascetic-practice taxonomy codified by the Visuddhimagga imported on a bare compound; the verse targets boast-worthy sīlavata as such, not any specific ascetic-practice list.
• māna → 1-through-10-fold typology culminating in the navavidha māna (mnd3:55). The nine-fold "comparing-against-comparators" grid (viewing the better as inferior/equal/superior; viewing the equal as inferior/equal/superior; viewing the inferior as inferior/equal/superior) is fully Vibhaṅga-period taxonomy.
• dhammā → 62 diṭṭhigatāni (mnd3:36.10–11, mnd3:44.2). The Brahmajāla 62-view list imported on the bare plural at v. 5 and v. 6.
• sakaṁ diṭṭhiṁ → ten avyākata (mnd3:10.5–18). The Brahmajāla / Cūḷamāluṅkya schema imported on the bare phrase at v. 2.

Where the Niddesa works with the verse. Three genuinely sharp moves:

• The ānisaṁsa split at mnd3:38 — sect-formation as a social-soteriological strategy with this-life (diṭṭhadhammika) and next-life (samparāyika) payoffs. A sociological diagnosis that illuminates the verse's polemic.
• The paravicchindana / anabhisambhuṇana split at mnd3:46 — the diṭṭhi-changing pattern (rejection by external refutation or by inability to maintain practice; followed by adoption of a new view). The Niddesa is diagnosing precisely the cycle the verse argues against in v. 6.
• The dhono etymological pun at mnd3:50 — √dhū / √dhāv (shake / wash), with adhosi in v. 8 sealing the pattern. A poetic reading of the verse's own sound-play.

Niddesa reading later rejected by the published consensus. The Niddesa's attā nirattā = sassatadiṭṭhi/ucchedadiṭṭhi at mnd3:62.2–3 is the minority reading (see Choice-points).

Cross-recensional witnesses

Pāli: full; 8 verses.

Chinese Yizujing YZJ-3 須陀利經 ("Sundarī Sūtra") at [T0198_p0176b12]–[T0198_p0177c18]: 19 verses = 8 parallel + 11 added (Lee 2024 Table 2). The most striking cross-recensional structural difference observed in the AV so far. Where the Pāli gives Snp 4.3 as a tight 8-verse frameless polemic, the Yizujing wraps the same 8 verses inside a full Sundarī-slander narrative plus a four-lay-devotee visit sequence (Asurī → Sudatta / Anāthapiṇḍika → Viyañ'ha → King Pasenadi), with 11 additional verses interspersed at the scene-specific teachings.

The frame-narrative: heretics (tīrthika), jealous of the Buddha's gain and honour, plot to discredit him by murdering a young lay-woman named Sundarī and planting the body near the saṅgha's dwelling. King Pasenadi's investigators uncover the plot and the heretics confess; the king exiles them. The Buddha enters Sāvatthī for alms; a succession of lay-devotees meets him, each expressing grief that the saṅgha has been slandered. The Buddha delivers scene-specific verse-clusters to each, culminating in King Pasenadi's own visit and a formal delivery of the Snp 4.3 verses.

The 11 added verses are traceable to Pāli Dhammapada material: Dhp 227 ("they blame the silent, they blame the talkative"; Asurī scene); Dhp 320 ("like an elephant in battle bearing arrows shot from bows, I shall endure abusive speech"; Sudatta scene); Dhp 125 ("evil returns to the fool like fine dust thrown against the wind"; Viyañ'ha scene). The Chinese Yizujing composite sūtra draws on AV polemic + Dhp patience-and-slander verses + the Udāna's Sundarī narrative, combining into a single thematically-unified teaching on responding to slander — material the Pāli distributes across three separate texts (Snp 4.3, Dhp chs. 17–21, Ud 4.8).

The Snp 4.3 / Sundarī commentarial wiring. Three independent Pāli-stream commentarial witnesses tie Snp 4.3's verses to the Sundarī affair: the Niddesa's passing reference at mnd3:10.2 ("when the heretics had killed Sundarī the wandering nun and made known the discredit of the Sakyaputtian ascetics…"); Pj II's full framing narrative; and the Yizujing's own elaborate prose frame. But the canonical Pāli Udāna 4.8 (Sundarīsutta), which is the Pāli source of the Sundarī story, does not cite Snp 4.3's verses at all. Ud 4.8 has its own Buddha-response verse (Abhūtavādī nirayaṁ upeti, Yo vāpi katvā na karomi cāha…) and its own closing udāna (Tudanti vācāya janā asaññatā, Sarehi saṅgāmagataṁva kuñjaraṁ…). The Snp 4.3 / Sundarī link is a commentarial retrofit, not a canonical pairing. Three traditions independently attached the same occasion to a frameless verse-cluster.

This is the same pattern visible at Snp 4.5 (blind-men parable / Ud 6.4): a vivid narrative occasion is the framing in two commentarial recensions (Pj II + Yizujing) while the canonical Udāna pairs the same narrative with a different verse-response. Two consecutive cases of the pattern — 4.3 (Sundarī) and 4.5 (blind-men) — with 4.4 likely showing a third variant (Candābha / Mojie per the prior Part II 4.5 entry). Chapter 7 treats this as a corpus-level recension-history feature.

Sanskrit: not attested. Hoernle 1916 covers Snp 4.7–4.10.

Gāndhārī: not attested. The Split Arthapada scroll's coverage begins at Sn 841 (Snp 4.9).

Coverage note. Snp 4.3 is verse-level 2-recension (Pāli + Chinese), but the Chinese recension preserves a substantially different sūtra-form — a 19-verse composite with a narrative frame and cross-textual Dhammapada borrowings — from what the Pāli preserves. The divergence is among the largest in the AV corpus.

Internal cross-references

Within the AV. 4.3 is the AV's formulaic hub. Two four-sutta formulas concentrate here:

• Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ at v. 6 is identical with Sn 800d (4.5:6.4), Sn 838c (4.9:3.3), and Sn 907d (4.13:13.2).
• Attā nirattā at v. 8 is the paradigm form; variants at 4.10:11.3 (Attā vāpi nirattā vā), 4.14:5.4 (Natthi attā kuto nirattā vā), 4.15:20.4 (Nādeti na nirassatī), plus related expressions at 4.4:4.3 and 4.5:5.1.

Further AV-internal bonds: ussadā natthi kuhiñci loke (v. 4) shared verbatim with 4.10:8.4; pakappitā diṭṭhi bhavābhavesu (v. 7) thematically parallels 4.2:5.4 and 4.13:7.4 Avītataṇhāse bhavābhavesu; upayo / anūpayo dialectic recurs elsewhere in the diṭṭhi-debate cluster (4.5, 4.9, 4.13).

Within the Khuddaka. Dhono at MN 56:29.29 (Upālisutta) occurs in Upāli's verses in praise of the Buddha; the AV uses the term as a goal-portrait, MN 56 as a Buddha-epithet. Either Upāli's verses draw on the AV lexicon or both draw on a common stock of sage-epithets. Abhinibbutatto (v. 4) is also at Snp 2.12 Vaṅgīsasutta and Snp 3.4 Sundarikabhāradvāja — both in Snp vaggas other than the AV; the term is cross-Snp rather than AV-exclusive. The Niddesa embeds the striving-vow verse Nāsissaṁ na pivissāmi… (cf. AN 8.13, Snp 3.2 Padhānasutta) and the Bodhi-tree resolution verse Na tāvāhaṁ imaṁ pallaṅkaṁ bhindissāmi… (MN 70, AN 2.5) as illustrations of vīriya-samādāna — cross-canonical embedding within the AV commentary.

Prose-nikāya uptake. The Udāna 4.8 Sundarīsutta is the canonical Pāli source of the narrative three commentarial traditions attach to Snp 4.3, but it uses different verses (see Cross-recensional witnesses, above). The Snp 4.3 / Sundarī linkage is thus a commentarial feature rather than a canonical one. The homonymy with Snp 3.4 Sundarikabhāradvāja — a different male brahmin with a place-name-derived patronymic — is lexical only; the Sundarī of Ud 4.8 and the Sundarikabhāradvāja of Snp 3.4 are unrelated figures.

Reception and external attestation

Mahāniddesa: Mnd 3 covers all eight verses. See Vocabulary and commentary, and Cross-recensional witnesses (for the Sundarī-frame passing reference at mnd3:10.2).

Paramatthajotikā II: supplies the full Sundarī-affair framing narrative (Bodhi 2017 apparatus on the sutta). The eight verses are presented as serial Buddha-utterances over the seven-day affair.

Aśoka Bhabru edict: not identified with any of the seven dhamma-paliyāyāni.

Peṭakopadesa: no verse of Snp 4.3 is cited in Pe chapter 1's AV-extraction. The Pe's citation density concentrates on 4.2, 4.6, 4.7 (see Chapter 8).

Reading

Snp 4.3 is the AV's diṭṭhi-polemic set-piece and the formulaic hub of the collection. Two of the AV's four-sutta formulas meet here — Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ at v. 6 and Attā nirattā at v. 8 — and together they bind 4.3 into direct formulaic conversation with 4.5, 4.9, 4.10, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15. If the diṭṭhi-debate cluster has a single compositional centre, it is this sutta.

The argument is economical. The muni takes no side in disputes (v. 1). Having any view at all is the trap (v. 2): one cannot transcend what one is already entrenched in. Sectarian self-proclamation is the social symptom (vv. 3–4), and the sage's contrary virtue is interior quenching without boasting (v. 4). The analytic core (vv. 5–6) identifies the disease precisely: what the sect-teacher takes as "peace" is peace conditioned on an unstable position; having decided among teachings, he grasps; having been refuted, he rejects and adopts another — the diṭṭhi-rejection-and-adoption cycle is the polemical target. The goal-state (vv. 7–8) is the dhono / anūpayo: one who has shaken off all views, has abandoned deceit and conceit, has no view about becoming after becoming, neither takes up nor puts down. And because he holds no position, he cannot be disputed with. The sutta closes on this argumentative-immunity claim.

Two features make 4.3 a pivotal entry for the rest of the book's reading.

First, the upayo / anūpayo dialectic of vv. 7–8 is the AV's most economical formulation of its no-position thesis. "With one uninvolved, how, by what, would one dispute?" names the polemical posture that will recur through 4.5 Paramaṭṭhaka, 4.9 Māgaṇḍiya, 4.12 Cūḷaviyūha, and 4.13 Mahāviyūha. The AV's sustained polemic is against having positions — not against specific wrong positions in favour of specific right ones. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 both return to this formulation; so does Chapter 10, which names the apophasis-vs-right-view-in-apophatic-register question as unresolved in the scholarly literature.

Second, the Sundarī commentarial-wiring pattern visible here is the clearest case of the verses-first / frames-later transmission shape the AV as a collection seems to preserve. Three independent commentarial witnesses — Mahāniddesa (passingly), Pj II (fully), Yizujing (most elaborately) — each retrofit the Sundarī affair as Snp 4.3's occasion, while the canonical Udāna source of the Sundarī story itself uses entirely different verses to respond to it. The Yizujing compounds the retrofit by weaving 11 additional verses drawn from the Pāli Dhammapada into a single composite sūtra-form. What the Pāli stream distributes across three separate texts (Snp 4.3's verses, Dhp chs. 17–21, Ud 4.8), the Chinese stream combines into one thematically-unified teaching on responding to slander. The pattern is the same as at Snp 4.5 (blind-men parable / Ud 6.4) — Pj II + Yizujing attaching the same commentarial frame while the canonical Udāna pairs it with a different verse — but richer, with 11 bridging verses and a four-lay-devotee narrative architecture. Chapter 7 treats the pattern as corpus-level evidence for the verse-core / narrative-envelope transmission structure.